How exaggerated are the Obama administration’s sexual assault stats?

In my last post, I showed exactly where the White House is getting their “1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted in college” stat.

Now that we know where it’s coming from, let’s breakdown just how exaggerated this number is.

The idea that one in five women are raped or sexually assaulted at college just doesn’t pass the smell test, does it?
Economist Mark Perry from the American Enterprise Institute felt the same way. So, instead of just blindly believing it, he actually obtained the sexual assault numbers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison from 2009-2012.

This isn’t common core math, people. It wasn’t 1 in 5 women, it was more like 1 in 20. But, even that number is only true when you assume, as the president has, that about 12% of sexual assaults actually get reported. If you go by the actual reported assault rate, the number is not 1 in 5, but 1 in 163. Other schools he looked at showed similar, if not more damning results to the Presidents alarm.

Can we really believe that 20% of women are sexually assaulted in college?

In 2012, the rape rate in Detroit was 0.05%.

The Obama administration is promoting a number that claims going to college is 400 times as dangerous as living in Detroit.

Think that’s crazy?

During the entire first and second Liberian civil war 1 in 43 women were raped.

The administration is telling you that going to college is 8 times as dangerous as living through two civil wars in Liberia.

During the Rwandan genocide, about 1 in 15 women were raped.

The president is trying to tell you that going to college is three times as dangerous as the Rwandan genocide.

Obviously, some measures of sexual assault are tough to compare because of the way records are kept. But that’s the issue. By cheapening the definitions to max out the victim numbers, you do a massive disservice to those truly affected.

The truth is, if any of these measures were remotely close to accurate, would there be one loving parent in America who would send their daughter to college? Who would spend 40,000 dollars a year to send their kid to Rwandan genocide—times three?

Besides, if the administration actually cared about making women feel comfortable in their personal space, would they appoint this guy to head the task force to protect students from sexual assault?

Now, I have to admit I did not retweet that so does that mean I think sexual assault is acceptable? Either that or I think that stat is BS.

Before I go any further, I want to let you know that I know challenging this makes me anti-woman. So I would like to throw out a heartfelt disclaimer.

The correct number of sexual assaults should be zero. No amount of sexual assault is acceptable. Sexual assault is a serious issue. More, can, and should be done to stop sexual assault. I am not saying women aren’t taken advantage of at college. I am not saying we shouldn’t provide the tools to help eradicate sexual abuse. Sexual assault bad. No sexual assault good. Sex good (sometimes). Unwanted sex bad (always). Again, the correct number of sexual assaults is zero. I never, ever, never, want there to be a sexual assault ever, ever again.

This ‘1 in 5’ stat is being repeated everywhere.

Where are they getting this number from?

The White House gets the “1 in 5” number from two studies. The Campus Sexual Assault Study conducted for the Justice Department found that “ Nineteen percent of the women reported experiencing completed or attempted sexual assault since entering college…”

First of all, this study is not representative of all colleges, but of only two. It was an online survey that the authors themselves admitted had low response rates.

And while the majority of those assaulted were drunk or high when the incident took place, 62% of these victims DID NOT consider the incident to be rape. What’s going on here is that the president is saying these women were raped, and these women are saying they weren’t. Who do you believe?

The study states that 18% of women in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives.

But, how do you figure out if someone’s been raped? One way would be to ask the person if they have been raped. But, why do that when you can ask misleading questions and try and figure it out for yourself!

The study asked questions like: “When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had sex with you?”

It’s incoherent wording like that that makes this confusing.

Newsflash, but it is possible to have consensual sex while drunk or high. Watch any beer commercial. What you will see is a bunch of hot women and good looking dudes drinking beer with the strong insinuation they will soon be hooking up.

Yes, it’s true. You lose your inhibitions when you drink alcohol. It’s also why you drink alcohol. If you eliminate sex while drunk or high you eliminate half the sex in the country.
But this survey was designed in a way to massively inflate the number of victims.

Here is an example of how the study defines sexual assault: “being pressured in ways that included being worn down by someone who repeatedly asks for sex or showed they were unhappy; feeling pressured by being lied to, being told promises that were untrue, having someone threaten to end a relationship or spread rumors; and sexual pressure due to someone using their influence or authority.”

To see Jeffy act these scenarios act, watch the below. Viewer discretion is seriously advised.

Your browser does not support iframes.

Are those things annoying? Yes. But is convincing someone to sleep with you because you’re sad the equivalent of sexual assault? That’s just absurd.

Now, you have an idea as to how these numbers can be misleading. But, is it even possible that the statistic the White House has been using is close to accurate? We’ll cover that in part 2.

Operation Experimentation: The U.S. government’s terrifying history of human experiments

By Stu
Updated 04/29/2014 | 4:13 PM EST

Powerful government can lead to some really bad things, especially in the name of the common good. In the last article, I talked about the horrors of the Tuskegee Experiment. Unfortunately, our history of experimenting on people doesn’t stop there. Let’s take a quick look back at the history of the US government’s shady experiments.

Your browser does not support iframes.

In 1915, inmates were put on extreme rations to prove a government doctor’s theory that the disease “pellagra” was caused by a dietary deficiency. The inmates were left starved and covered in red lesions, but at least they were offered pardons for their participation.

In 1942, a federally funded study began injecting an experimental flu vaccine in patients at a state insane asylum in Michigan. The patients were then exposed to flu several months later. This would all be well and fine, except that the patients had no idea what was being done to them.

In 1957, federal researchers sprayed the Asian Flu virus in the noses of 23 prison inmates in Maryland to compare their reactions to those of 32 virus-exposed inmates who had been given a new vaccine.

In the 1950s, the Ohio state prison system allowed researchers to inject over 100 inmates with live cancer cells. The study was designed to examine “the natural killing off process of the human body.” But that’s not what the inmates were told. They were told they faced “no grave danger.”

In the early 1960s, researchers injected cancer cells into nineteen debilitated patients at a Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in Brooklyn to see if their bodies would reject them. The patients were simply not told they were being shot up with cancer cells—they were too old to care anyway.

Also in the 1950s, government researchers attempted to infect two dozen prison inmates with gonorrhea. The bacteria was pumped directly into the urinary tract to see if the inmates would react differently than contracting it the normal way. If you need further clarification, ask Jeffy.

In 1958, children at the now famous Willowbrook State School for Children, were intentionally given hepatitis to see if it could be cured by a new form of protection. They did send out a nice permission note though.“We are studying the possibility of preventing epidemics of hepatitis on a new principle. Virus is introduced and gamma globulin given later to some, so that either no attack or only a mild attack of hepatitis is expected to follow.” It’s interesting to note that the Willowbrook was chosen as the location for the study solely because so many children already had hepatitis from the poor living conditions there.

In the early 1920s, a physician at San Quentin prison in California implanted testicles from rams, goats, boars, and recently deceased convicts into inmates to “revitalize them.” I guess he was going for an early version of Viagra.

But that would never happen today. Right?

From 2004 through the Obama administration, subjects at the University of North Carolina’s School of Medicine were exposed to very high levels of toxic air pollutants while participating in an experiment by the EPA. The EPA failed to warn their test subjects about just how lethal the doses were.

Now it could be argued that these experiments were done for the common good. They were all conceived and executed with good intentions of garnering a better understanding of how the human body works. Helping people was the end goal of these experiments. But we all know good intentions pave the road to hell—and that’s exactly what happened here. When government retains too much control over anything—basic humanity is always sacrificed for the overall good of “progress.”

Except I really don’t think goat balls helped further any progress or helped any human. Ever. Unless, you’re into that sort of thing. Ask Jeffy.

In other words, these men were not injected with Syphilis. They were volunteers who already had late stages of the disease.

Let me say that again, The United States did not inject men with Syphilis during the Tuskegee Study.

What was horrific about the Tuskegee Study was that the men who volunteered as subjects we’re fooled into thinking they were being treated for Syphilis—they were not.

The study was originally projected to last 6 months—but went on to last 40 years. And for those 40 years, even after the discovery of penicillin, the volunteers were not given any treatment for syphilis. They were for the most part treated as objects to be studied under a microscope by a doctor named Dr. Eugene Dibble.

You see Dr. Dibble was head of the John Andrew Hospital at the Tuskegee Institute. Here’s what he wrote about the study:

It “….would offer very valuable training for our students as well as for the interns. Our own hospital and the Tuskegee Institute would get credit for this piece of research work. He (Dr. Clark) also predicts that the results of this study will be sought after the world over. Personally, I think we ought to do it.”

What an evil white bastard. This white bastard. What a racist whitey. Except that he wasn’t white at all.

Despite the lighting of the photo, Dr. Eugene Dibble was actually African American. But, you could argue that he was just the head of the hospital. He wasn’t dealing with this every day.

It was the head nurse. She’s the real monster here.

She was the only staff person to work with the study for all 40 years—and she was most definitely white.

This white nurse was influential in making the men believe they were getting treated for their disease.

When asked about her experience working with the men, she characterized it as “the joy of my life.”

That’s exactly what a racist white nurse would say! A white nurse would want to kill all those black people!

Except that she wasn’t white either.

Nurse Eunice Rivers was black just like the men she studied.

Surely everyone knows that one of the main doctors and the nurse were not white, right?

Look, no one is trying to say this experiment was a good thing. But shockingly many of the people involved thought it was. They believed they were doing something good for the collective. Isn’t that how so many problems begin?

The Tuskegee study is an example of how the government is all too capable of doing horrible things in the name of “common good.”

That gives you a nice visual of Charles and David Koch writing a check for over $400 million dollars. However when you actually click on the source for Harry’s “fact” you’ll find this on really unbiased (sarcasm) “Republic Report.”

First “The Kochs.” It’s not “The Kochs”, it’s a combination of 17 conservative groups that the Koch brothers are affiliated with in some way.

Two. The word “spent.” That’s not what the sentence says at all. The network raised at least $407 million. It clearly says “raised.” Spent and raised are two different things.

Three. “$400 Million.” The way they get to this number is so insulting to your intelligence you’re not going to believe it. They took every donation from every donor from all across America to all of these 17 organizations and credited them all to the Koch Brothers.

For example, one of these organizations is Americans for Prosperity. They alone have 90,000 donors. Harry Reid is giving credit for every dime donated by all donors to all these organizations to two people, the Koch Brothers.

To be fair, our unbiased source Republic Report notes that the Koch spending is Pac, individual, and outside spending. In this context, outside spending apparently means the spending of every single person in America who agrees with the Koch brothers.

Four. “Ads.” Actually they didn’t spend all of this money on ads. Some of it went to salaries and overhead but also as The New York Times points out: “Americans for Prosperity spent tens of millions of dollars in political advertising….while investing equally large sums to build a national grass-roots organization.”

So if you can believe The New York Times, which I admit is a stretch, it’s probably around half or less that actually went to ads.

Number five. “Misleading attacks.” Were those ads misleading attacks?

Congratulations you picked our video daily double. Here’s a sampling of ads that Koch related organizations ran during the election.

Certainly registering people to vote is not a misleading attack ad.

So, “Koch Brothers” is a lie. “Spent” is a lie. “$400 million” is a lie. “Misleading attacks” is a lie. “Ads” is a lie.

What’s left of this sentence is just “on.”

When we translate Harry’s original sentence from his native language of “Evnilian” to English it looks very different.

“The Kochs spent $400 million on misleading attack ads” is translated to “Seventeen conservative and or libertarian organizations that have similar beliefs to the Koch Brothers raised $407 million from hundreds of thousands of donors who have similar beliefs to the Koch Brothers of which they spent probably around half on ads some portion of which were attacking and an even smaller portion of which were misleading depending on your political views. Also the fact that I posted this is a violation of Senate Rules and I’m equal parts evil and senile. I am evnile.”

That sentence makes for a terrible attack website. But that’s what happens when you’re honest in translating Harry Reid’s Lies.

In his evnility, Harry must have also forgotten all about how the Koch Brothers donated to some of his close buddies like co-author of Obamacare, Max Baucus-Democrat, Mark Pryor-Democrat, John Dingell-Democrat, Tom Harkin-Democrat, Mary Landrieu-Democrat, Diane Feinstein-Democrat, Chuck Schumer-Democrat, Hillary Clinton-Democrat, Joe Biden-Democrat, Barack Obama—Democrat.

Ruining Your Heroes: George Bernard Shaw

You’ve probably seen the play My Fair Lady or have at least heard of the film with Audrey Hepburn, right? Delightful musical.

If you haven’t seen it, I’m sure Glenn Beck has.

He loves the theatre.

The famous playwright George Bernard Shaw won an Oscar for the screen play “Pygmalion” which “My Fair Lady” is based on.

Georgey is a really popular guy. Just look on social media and you’ll find countless people who have made a hero out of the playwright George Bernard Shaw. Why? Because he sure had a lot of cute sayings. Like this one:

“A happy family is but an earlier heaven.” Adorable.

You can tell how much he loves people. I found some other quotes from George Bernard Shaw that aren’t as well know. Like this one:

“A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

I told you he loves people. Oddly enough, no one has bothered to pin that one on Pinterest. Hmm.

I mean sure, George Bernard Shaw was an avowed Fabian socialist who LOVED eugenics and yeah, he believed everyone should have to justify their existence. You probably remember this classic:

Sure not everything Georgey said was so flowery and beautiful but he did have such a magical way with words.

Who wouldn’t want to celebrate such a wonderful, wonderful man who also said this:

“I appeal to the chemists to discover a human gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. Deadly by all means, but humane not cruel.”

See, he’s so nice he wants the mass murder to be done in a humane way.

In 1934 he also wrote:

“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way.”

Again… kill them in a decent, human way.

Sure this might be a little creepy, but let me lighten things up with this GBS classic:

“The Nazi movement is in many respects one which has my warmest sympathy.”

Yeah the same guy our education system says is a genius was pretty much a fanboy of Hitler.

The New York Times wrote about his admiration in 1933. In the article, George Bernard Shaw describes Hitler as “a very remarkable, very able man,” and was a genius to realize “Germany had been kicked long enough.”

In fact, he sang Hitler’s praises every chance he could.

And he really didn’t care for the people Hitler was treating harshly. He had some choice words for them.

“Stop being Jews and start being human beings.”

To be fair later on, he did start to question Hitler a little bit.

“Instead of exterminating the Jews, he (Hitler) should have said, I will tolerate Jews to any extent as long as no Jew marries a Jewess. That is how he could build up a strong, solid German people.”

And by the way, he wasn’t just a fan of Hitler, George Bernard Shaw had a solid man crush on Stalin. He visited Russia and wrote:

“There is not a more interesting country in the world today to visit than Soviet Russia, and I find traveling there perfectly safe and pleasant…Tomorrow I leave this land of hope and return to our Western countries of despair.”

He even recounted how generously he was fed by his hosts saying, “Starvation? Why, I’ve never eaten so wonderfully!” Mind you, his visit was during Stalin’s great famine when millions were dying of hunger.

Let’s not forget George Bernard Shaw’s love for another great Dictator: Mussolini! Shaw was such a fan he could imitate the dictator on the spot. You gotta watch his Mussolini impersonation:

He loved these despicable dictators because he thought they had the right ideas.

I would agree with George, that yes, they do, do things. They killed people. I’m pretty sure that’s what he liked about them.

George Bernard Shaw sure did hate people, but he loved animals! He was a staunch vegetarian.
He is often quoted by PETA as saying:

“The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them. That is the essence of inhumanity.”

That degree hanging on your wall is as worthless as a piece of toilet paper

By Stu
Updated 03/28/2014 | 11:24 AM EST

I never went to college so I missed out on all the keg parties and, apparently, a surplus of good grades.

Contrary to the concept of school as you knew it growing up, A’s are pretty easy to come by these days. In fact the only thing you have to work really hard to get are D’s and F’s. In college today, an A is over four times as common as a D or an F combined.

It’s a drastic change from the 15% of students who received A’s in 1960.

And this sort of makes sense if you think about it. No one wants to pay $40,000 a year to hear that they’re dumb.

College is one of the rare businesses in which you pay them and at the end of the experience they tell you how well they did. If you’re a parent and you send your kids to school and they get A’s you feel good about the purchase. But if your kids get F’s you feel like they wasted your money.

And amazingly these institutions of higher learning, that do little other than indoctrinate kids against the evils of capitalism, sure do understand incentives.

It may be hard to get into an Ivy League school, but according to Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, that’s where the hardship ends.

According to his research, our 1.1 trillion dollars in college debt is sure buying some awesome grades at some high brand schools.

Take Brown University for instance. Two-thirds of all letter grades given at Brown University are A’s.

At Harvard, fifty percent of all grades were either A or A-. And 91 percent of seniors graduated with honors.

I’ve got news for you if 91 percent of people are graduating with honors, it’s not honors.

Eighty percent of the grades given at the University of Illinois are A’s and B’s.

At Columbia University, fifty percent of students are on the Dean’s list. I’ve got news for ya if 50% of students are on the Deans list, it’s not the Deans list. It’s just a list of half of the school.

And how about Stanford? Only 6 percent of student grades at Stanford were a C or below.

That’s true, in one quarter of American businesses. And yes, if you want to be a neurosurgeon, you should probably have a piece of paper that says neurosurgeon on it. But six figure debt and the freshman 15 only gets you an advantage at one quarter of American businesses?

This is the type of scam that makes Bernie Madoff shudder with jealously.

Oh and by the way, a huge chunk of your tax dollars are going to pay for it.

How is the Obama Administration dealing with this? They’re trying to create more incentives to inflate grades by offering more cash to colleges that graduate students on Pell Grants.

Pretty soon this is going to be Zimbabwe. Their inflation got so bad that everyone in the entire country was a trillionaire but no one had any real money.

We’re becoming a country where everyone is on the honor roll but nobody knows what they hell they’re doing.

IF YOU WATCH ONE CRAZY SPORTS VIDEO TODAY, MAKE IT THIS CLASSIC

By Stu
Updated 03/06/2013 | 10:26 AM EST

Remember: When playing baseball, make your outs count.

Lately, there has been a lot of crazy sports highlights going viral (like this incredible ping pongvideo and the craziest end to a high school basketball game you’ll ever see or the one where a normal baseball game turns into a high contact sport ) which reminded me of a classic game played by former LA Dodgers and Oakland A’s player Jason Grabowski when he was in the minors. Two outs, three collisions, and one catcher who was really, really sore the next day. Watch the amazing clip below: